quote:

Originally posted by Lira And then he loses his right to post because he's not behaving in a certain imposed way? Wouldn't the ignore button suffice, for those who are really unable to deal with his attitude? Why not just stop debating with him?

my/our worry is that allowing him to stay would have brought down the standards of debate in our community, and i doubt anyone here would have that to happen willingly, or when there's an ability to stop it somehow.

we have no real beef with people who aim to provoke, but this guy might as well have been one of those people who make endless accounts on endless forums promoting some product/service - those people get banned on sight, so i see no reason why solgrabber should be spared.


i'd love to see an argument on why should we tolerate him.


p.s. and as for using the ignore button, no thanks - i'd rather not censor my world and/or have less understanding of discussions here for someone else's sake, especially someone who hasn't earned it.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

Lira raises a good question, but I think Psy T is right;

This really isn't about supressing free speech, as it is about not letting a serious forum get turned in to a zoo that every conspiracy theory goofball calls "home".

Honestly? I stopped posting in here for awhile because of people like Trancer X and all the nuts he was pulling in here. I thought it severely undermined the credibility of this board and this forum.

It's also kind of interesting to me that this happened today because on this other board where I'm a member, there is another Internet nut-job who is dragging it down, but the Mod refuses to do anything about it for some odd reason. So his board keeps losing members left and right, due in large part as a result of allowing this screwball to infect every thread like a virus.

Let too many goofballs on here and pretty soon, this forum will pop up every time one of them Googles "9-11 cover-up" or "mind control agents"...it feeds on itself.

"Keep them out please" I say.

Last edited by donnybrasco on May-17-2006 at 02:31

All he had to do was give a straight forward answer to the questions asked and everything would have been cool. The problem is he never did that, bitched about everyone not being on topic even though this wasn't the case, and then called everyone that wasn't in agreement with him that 9/11 was a government conspiracy an agent of disinformation.

You can't debate with that. You can't do anything with that. Every point that was brought up against his "argument" (which was really just an old 9/11 vid) was just a diversion in and of itself of the topic. Tiesto asked him directly, many times, if 9/11 was a setup who planned it and why. Simple enough to most of us, yet for some reason we made it 10 pages without a single answer or attempt at explanation. Instead Tiesto was labeled as a government agent of disinformation and told to stay on topic.

We don't need people like that here.

BTW: As PKC said; When almost every conservative and every liberal are TOGETHER on an issue, you truly know that you're on to something, lol.

Good job Neo...

ugh...apparently this wackjob lives in MY area...

tranceaddict Forums > Local Scene Info / Discussion > Canada > Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont. > conspiracy - what do you think
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=302624

He already put his two cents there....he's like a shoo fly....go away...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

What's wrong with so many of you Canadians? lol.

I thought you were better educated than us Americans?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i'd love to see an argument on why should we tolerate him.

Answering this would cover both this request and the point of views Raistlin and I were talking about. There are no quotes in this post for simplicity's sake, although I did read the posts before mine, and this should be a dialogue with them

1. Authority: Unlike real life, where criminals might threaten our lives and/or belongings, we're physically safe in an internet forum (at least, safer than on the streets). There are just two possible threats here:
   
   a. Hacking: Someone could hack into our accounts and/or trick us by using some script and illegally getting our information, such as bank passwords and usernames;
   
   b. Flooding: Indeed, excessive flooding would make it difficult for us to use the boards - every topic would be brought to page two before it had an opportunity of being read;
   
   These are real threats we have in an internet forum, and this is the reason why mods are required (although good software engineering could also handle most situations). Solgrabber has not posted an absurd amount of threads, nor he was a hacker (at least, he didn't attempt to do hack anyone here, has he?).
   
   By denying solgrabber access to this forum, we have now removed someone because he violated a social norm (not replying the way other users expected him to). The correct punishment for such behaviour should not need the intervention of an authority figure (such as a mod), but rather the reaction of other users: by mocking him, by ignoring him... if we start to require the presence of an authority and establish an informal censorship, we fail to see something else, which is...
   
2. Freedom of speech: One of the greatest advantages of the internet is this freedom of speech and trouble with censorship. Our discussions here are not a threat to society (i.e. we're not talking about how to steal banks or anything), and wouldn't need to be so tightly monitored. Once the freedom of speech is endangered, we're opening doors for censorship, which is based strongly on judgements and, being of human nature, can ultimately fail and become unfair.
   

I'd like to talk more about it, but I've got to go. Summarising what I said, this is a place for discussion: how can we can we claim we're debating if an extremely different view is censored?

I rest my case

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco BTW: As PKC said; When almost every conservative and every liberal are TOGETHER on an issue, you truly know that you're on to something, lol.

"Crime brings together honest men and concentrates them."
(Giddens, 1972, p. 127 [excerpt from The Division of Labor in Society by Émile Durkheim])

quote:

Originally posted by Lira By denying solgrabber access to this forum, we have now removed someone because he violated a social norm (not replying the way other users expected him to). The correct punishment for such behaviour should not need the intervention of an authority figure (such as a mod), but rather the reaction of other users: by mocking him, by ignoring him... if we start to require the presence of an authority and establish an informal censorship, we fail to see something else, which is...

Ahem... The correct punishment?
As determined by who?
Regardless, if you didnt look, all those reactions took place, and it just degraded the PDD into being the COR, and there are reasons for why most of the PDD dont venture in there.
And that last clause, coming from our former moderator? do you miss the discrepancy?
Even if ignoring that particular question, we do not require the presence of an authority actively nor passively, we simply call upon them when a need arises; They don't even monitor us.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Freedom of speech: One of the greatest advantages of the internet is this freedom of speech and trouble with censorship. Our discussions here are not a threat to society (i.e. we're not talking about how to steal banks or anything), and wouldn't need to be so tightly monitored. Once the freedom of speech is endangered, we're opening doors for censorship, which is based strongly on judgements and, being of human nature, can ultimately fail and become unfair.

Freedom of speech does not exist here on TA, examples: hate mongering - banned on sight, promoting products - banned on sight, posting excessive nudity - banned on sight (there are exceptions obviously).

As I said above, our discussions are not monitored by the authorities - they are monitored by us.

We can't be endangering the freedom of speech that we do not have, we can only protect the illusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'd like to talk more about it, but I've got to go. Summarising what I said, this is a place for discussion: how can we can we claim we're debating if an extremely different view is censored? I rest my case

I agree, this is a place for discussion, but...
We did not ban him for his views, we banned him because he was stopping us from doing what we claim to do here - namely debate.

quote:

Copied from dictionary.com de·bate Audio pronunciation of "debate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-bt) v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates v. intr. 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. 3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss. 4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel. v. tr. 1. To deliberate on; consider. 2. To dispute or argue about. 3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally. 4. Obsolete. To fight or argue for or over. n. 1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument. 2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate. 3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition. 4. Obsolete. Conflict; strife.

The defence rests.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Ahem... The correct punishment? As determined by who?

By the grounds under which such actions happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Regardless, if you didnt look, all those reactions took place, and it just degraded the PDD into being the COR, and there are reasons for why most of the PDD dont venture in there.

I know there are important differences between the COR and the PDD.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T And that last clause, coming from our former moderator? do you miss the discrepancy?

I'm not quite sure about what you mean by "the discrepancy", but regarding my position as a former moderator and what I said about informal censorship, I never thought of myself as an absolute power: With rare exceptions (if any), my goal was to help the debates flow. If the majority of users thought something was prejudicial, I could even oppose to that (as I'm doing right now), but it doesn't mean I wouldn't do what I was being asked. If I were a moderator now, I would first discuss it - then, I'd take action.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Even if ignoring that particular question, we do not require the presence of an authority actively nor passively, we simply call upon them when a need arises; They don't even monitor us.

That's something I agree with, although I did monitor the threads in order to know what was going on.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T Freedom of speech does not exist here on TA, examples: hate mongering - banned on sight, promoting products - banned on sight, posting excessive nudity - banned on sight (there are exceptions obviously).

These cases are against the rules and purposes of the forums: Promoting products can hardly be considered a Political Debate (or Music Discussion and so on), excessive nudity could limit the access of minors, and hate mongering - well, that's something to be studied.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T We can't be endangering the freedom of speech that we do not have, we can only protect the illusion.

No, we do have freedom of speech: however, as in real life, we do have limits because of others.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T I agree, this is a place for discussion, but... We did not ban him for his views, we banned him because he was stopping us from doing what we claim to do here - namely debate.

Like I had said before, there were other ways to avoid him. However, if the majority felt the ostracism was necessary, then I will respect such decision and I will not keep talking about it.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^Logic and common sense by definition automatically preclude one from answering pointless and baseless claims.

Yes solgrabber was making claims with no basis other than a movie he was begging people to watch, but i have seen others raise questions & no answers have come. Just more flames.

___________________
. . .. . .. . . . .. . .